There are a number of possibilities. I think at this point that a likely one is simply that people have run out of unemployment insurance. I notice that at the end of this month, supposedly two million people were in danger (I don’t know if that’s still a problem or not) of running out of unemployment insurance. That’s probably about a percentage point of employable people, right there that would drop off the unemployed list.
There are also things like college and retirement to suck up people who’d otherwise be categorized as unemployed.
Finally, there’s just the possibility that the administration is cooking numbers.
Makes one wonder if the Republicans in congress would suddenly cave in and extend unemployment benefits.
I’d bet money on it.
Then after they lose the next election, they’ll blame the conservative ‘base’ for deserting them, and wonder why the independents would choose real red-blooded socialists over socialist wannabees.
Pelosi’s probably gonna come out with her own ‘999’ plan soon. 999 weeks of unemployment insurance for everybody! Because nothing is more stimulative to the economy than unemployment insurance.
Could it be that large numbers of people really have gone Galt?
What I don’t understand is why (and how) the price of oil has gone from $86 a barrel to $100 a barrel, and the price of gasoline in Maryland has gone from $3.49 to $3.09 per gallon.
Maryland has switched to their cheaper winter blends. The prices will flip the other way in the spring.
When Bush left office the price there was $1.60 a gallon. Miss him yet?
When Bush left office the price there was $1.60 a gallon. Miss him yet?
No, but then, I understand the difference between correlation and causality.
The government doesn’t produce oil any more than it creates jobs.
“The government doesn’t produce oil any more than it creates jobs.”
It can deeply interfere with the production of oil…which it has. Bush interfered less.
And it can interfere with the production of jobs…which it has….
Yes. Government may not create, but it certainly can raise prices and destroy jobs. For example of both in one legislation see incandescent light bulb ban.
Leland, that legislation was passed in 2007 and signed into law by George W. Bush.
Not a reason to miss him, in my opinion.
Indeed. And fair enough on your point. I’m no fan of Bush (either) except in relation to what we have now and those who ran against him. My point was simply on the ability of government to raise prices and destroy jobs.
It would be booming a lot more (with a lot more jobs) if he hadn’t shut down the Gulf and would open up the shale leases. It’s booming despite him, not because of him.
Jim, your article says “North American” oil production, not “US” oil production. A third of the projected increase is from Canada, but thanks to Obama stopping the pipeline to Texas, the extra Canadian oil will be sold to China instead of here. Most of the increase in the US is due to fracking, a technology that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with and is desperately trying to shut down. He’s having the EPA investigate the process to find environmental grounds to ban it, just has he previously stopped new nuclear plants by ruling out the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository and saying no new plants can be built till we find another repository site. The work at Yucca Mountain took decades, so another generation of Americans will grow up before any new nuclear power goes online.
Meanwhile, Obama continues the ban on developing oil production on the outer continental shelf, continues the ban on developing ANWAR, continues to demonize big oil, continues to give billions of DOE dollars to his campaign bundlers for wacko solar projects.
The only attempt he’s made at increasing oil production was the billions he gave Brazil so they could drill for oil to sell to us, creating jobs in Brazil.
As Obama always tells us, it will take years before any oil from new wells to hit the market. So long of course that it is not worth doing because we will all be using electric jet packs by then but not so long that Obama’s supporters wont claim credit for drilling projects that began before he took office.
Obama didn’t need to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at the oil industry like he did with green jobs, he just had to stay out of the way.
It can deeply interfere with the production of oil…which it has. Bush interfered less.
Really? I don’t recall the Dept of Energy budget going down while Bush was in office. Or any budget, for that matter.
No, I don’t miss him at all.
Did George Bush ban drilling in ANWAR?
Did George Bush forbid drilling in the outer shelves?
Also, note I said that Bush interefered *less*. Not zero.
I don’t recall Bush sending billions to whacko-green scam companies
Did George Bush ban drilling in ANWAR?
No, Congress did. Bush II tried to persuade Congress to lift the ban. Not very hard, apparently, because he failed even when his own party controlled Congress. Is that what you miss?
Did George Bush forbid drilling in the outer shelves?
Drilling on the outer shelves began because of a ban on near-shore drilling signed by Bush I. Bush II both supported and opposed the off-shore ban, at various times.
I don’t recall Bush sending billions to whacko-green scam companies.
You don’t think Bush funded green energy? Maybe you don’t recall it, but George W. Bush does and he’s quite proud of it. Last year, he spoke at an American Wind Association conference in Dallas. He repeated that the United States was “dangerously addicted to oil” (a line previously used in a State of the Union address) and boasted of support for alternative energy going back to his days as governor of Texas.
Also see previous discussion about the light-bulb ban.
The Bush record is more complex than just a slogan at the side of the highway.
His line in the SOTU address was “addicted to foreign oil”.
Also, note I said that Bush interefered *less*. Not zero.
I asked you if the DOE budget went down under Bush. Not if it went to zero.
I note that you haven’t answered me.
If your argument is merely that Bush spent and interfered less than Obama (but more than any of his predecessors), fine, but that’s no reason for me to miss him. There are over 300 million Americans who’ve spent less than Obama, but that should not be the only qualification for being President.
From Jim’s link and to George’s point:
“We have this momentum out there to set about doing what we said we wanted to do back in the 1970s: reduce the flow of imports from volatile regions,” [Historian from University of Houston] Pratt said. “It was like the Holy Grail back then. And suddenly it seems possible.”
later
The oil boom has plenty of economic upside potential. IHS-CERA predicts oil production could directly and indirectly generate another 1.3 million U.S. jobs over the next decade and raise an additional $97 billion in federal taxes and royalty payments.
But plenty of people are concerned about the other costs that might come with more oil production.
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a major project to bring Canadian oil sands to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, has become a rallying point for environmentalists, with hundreds arrested during a sit-in in front of the White House several weeks ago.
And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with new rules aimed at tighter controls on emissions from oil and gas drilling, production and transportation.
Actually, I’d say Jim’s link proves Gregg’s comment.
“If your argument is merely that Bush spent and interfered less than Obama (but more than any of his predecessors), fine,..”
It is.
” but that’s no reason for me to miss him.”
There’s lots about Bush II, I didn’t like. I wasn’t trying to make a case for him..I was giving an example of an alternative to Obama’s actions.
“If your argument is merely that Bush spent and interfered less than Obama (but more than any of his predecessors), fine,..”
It is.
Bush deserves credit not because he was better than his predecessors but because his successor was worse??? Does that actually make sense to you?
By that argument, we should long for Jimmy Carter because he spent less than Bush did.
“Obama bad” does not mean “Bush good” any more than “Bush bad” means “Carter good.”
“I asked you if the DOE budget went down under Bush. Not if it went to zero.
I note that you haven’t answered me. ”
Not every question is worth an answer. I dont’ care what the DOE budget was because I don’t know how the dollars were allocated.
What I do know is that the question is irrelevant to my point.
Not every question is worth an answer. I dont’ care what the DOE budget was because I don’t know how the dollars were allocated.
What I do know is that the question is irrelevant to my point.
Really? You don’t understand how the DOE is relevant to government interference in energy markets? You need to know every detail of the DOE budget to form an opinion? The name of the department doesn’t provide a clue?
Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
Ronald Reagan asked, “When has the Department of Energy every produced a single barrel of oil?”
I’ll bet you don’t answer that question, either.
Edward:
Yes Edward – irrelevant..wholly, totally and utterly irrelevant to my point…do you even remember what my point was?
Your question about the DOE is irrelevant to my point.
Period.
Do you even know what my point was? I begin to doubt it:
It’s like you’ve sat in a dark room festering and fulminating and twisting your mind into the raging conclusion that I’m trying to make a case for loving Bush (either one of them).
I’m not.
My point – since you clearly do not know or remember – was that the government doesn’t create jobs (aside from the few gubbmint jobs) but it can and does interfere with job creation. And lately it’s been interfering a LOT. I mentioned Bush only as an example of a president who interfered LESS than Obama.
That’s it.
How you go from that to thinking the number of bbl the DOE creates is at all relevant, [I agree with you – none – which of course is the entire point ] or a love fest with Bush I cannot tell.
Maybe the holiday seasons stresses are getting to you.
My point – since you clearly do not know or remember – was that the government doesn’t create jobs (aside from the few gubbmint jobs) but it can and does interfere with job creation. And lately it’s been interfering a LOT. I mentioned Bush only as an example of a president who interfered LESS than Obama.
The point that you miss, Gregg, is that Bush (like every other President) based his policies on what he inherited from his predecessors, *NOT* his successor.
The arrow of time flows in only one direction, no matter how hard you try to reverse it. Bush did not shrink the size of government from Obama levels, he *grew* the size of government from Clinton levels.
That is what those inane billboards are asking us to “miss” — Obama 0.5. The man who grew the size of the Federal government to unprecedented levels, at a faster rate than any President since Kennedy, and set the stage for everything Obama is doing now.
The fact that Obama destroyed more jobs than Bush did is no reason for any rational person to “miss” Bush. That’s like asking people to miss the broken arm they had last year because it’s better than the broken leg they have now.
The American people are no longer willing to put up with that. That’s what the Tea Party movement is all about. People are fed up with *both* political parties.
Read my lips — no new Bushes!
…Well ok maybe now WHOLLy irrelevant..since what you are saying about the DOE supports my point….
There are a number of possibilities. I think at this point that a likely one is simply that people have run out of unemployment insurance. I notice that at the end of this month, supposedly two million people were in danger (I don’t know if that’s still a problem or not) of running out of unemployment insurance. That’s probably about a percentage point of employable people, right there that would drop off the unemployed list.
There are also things like college and retirement to suck up people who’d otherwise be categorized as unemployed.
Finally, there’s just the possibility that the administration is cooking numbers.
Makes one wonder if the Republicans in congress would suddenly cave in and extend unemployment benefits.
I’d bet money on it.
Then after they lose the next election, they’ll blame the conservative ‘base’ for deserting them, and wonder why the independents would choose real red-blooded socialists over socialist wannabees.
Pelosi’s probably gonna come out with her own ‘999’ plan soon. 999 weeks of unemployment insurance for everybody! Because nothing is more stimulative to the economy than unemployment insurance.
Could it be that large numbers of people really have gone Galt?
What I don’t understand is why (and how) the price of oil has gone from $86 a barrel to $100 a barrel, and the price of gasoline in Maryland has gone from $3.49 to $3.09 per gallon.
Maryland has switched to their cheaper winter blends. The prices will flip the other way in the spring.
When Bush left office the price there was $1.60 a gallon. Miss him yet?
When Bush left office the price there was $1.60 a gallon. Miss him yet?
No, but then, I understand the difference between correlation and causality.
The government doesn’t produce oil any more than it creates jobs.
“The government doesn’t produce oil any more than it creates jobs.”
It can deeply interfere with the production of oil…which it has. Bush interfered less.
And it can interfere with the production of jobs…which it has….
Yes. Government may not create, but it certainly can raise prices and destroy jobs. For example of both in one legislation see incandescent light bulb ban.
Leland, that legislation was passed in 2007 and signed into law by George W. Bush.
Not a reason to miss him, in my opinion.
Indeed. And fair enough on your point. I’m no fan of Bush (either) except in relation to what we have now and those who ran against him. My point was simply on the ability of government to raise prices and destroy jobs.
Bush interfered less.
And yet US oil production is booming under Obama.
It would be booming a lot more (with a lot more jobs) if he hadn’t shut down the Gulf and would open up the shale leases. It’s booming despite him, not because of him.
Jim, your article says “North American” oil production, not “US” oil production. A third of the projected increase is from Canada, but thanks to Obama stopping the pipeline to Texas, the extra Canadian oil will be sold to China instead of here. Most of the increase in the US is due to fracking, a technology that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with and is desperately trying to shut down. He’s having the EPA investigate the process to find environmental grounds to ban it, just has he previously stopped new nuclear plants by ruling out the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository and saying no new plants can be built till we find another repository site. The work at Yucca Mountain took decades, so another generation of Americans will grow up before any new nuclear power goes online.
Meanwhile, Obama continues the ban on developing oil production on the outer continental shelf, continues the ban on developing ANWAR, continues to demonize big oil, continues to give billions of DOE dollars to his campaign bundlers for wacko solar projects.
The only attempt he’s made at increasing oil production was the billions he gave Brazil so they could drill for oil to sell to us, creating jobs in Brazil.
As Obama always tells us, it will take years before any oil from new wells to hit the market. So long of course that it is not worth doing because we will all be using electric jet packs by then but not so long that Obama’s supporters wont claim credit for drilling projects that began before he took office.
Obama didn’t need to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at the oil industry like he did with green jobs, he just had to stay out of the way.
It can deeply interfere with the production of oil…which it has. Bush interfered less.
Really? I don’t recall the Dept of Energy budget going down while Bush was in office. Or any budget, for that matter.
No, I don’t miss him at all.
Did George Bush ban drilling in ANWAR?
Did George Bush forbid drilling in the outer shelves?
Also, note I said that Bush interefered *less*. Not zero.
I don’t recall Bush sending billions to whacko-green scam companies
Did George Bush ban drilling in ANWAR?
No, Congress did. Bush II tried to persuade Congress to lift the ban. Not very hard, apparently, because he failed even when his own party controlled Congress. Is that what you miss?
Did George Bush forbid drilling in the outer shelves?
Drilling on the outer shelves began because of a ban on near-shore drilling signed by Bush I. Bush II both supported and opposed the off-shore ban, at various times.
I don’t recall Bush sending billions to whacko-green scam companies.
You don’t think Bush funded green energy? Maybe you don’t recall it, but George W. Bush does and he’s quite proud of it. Last year, he spoke at an American Wind Association conference in Dallas. He repeated that the United States was “dangerously addicted to oil” (a line previously used in a State of the Union address) and boasted of support for alternative energy going back to his days as governor of Texas.
Also see previous discussion about the light-bulb ban.
The Bush record is more complex than just a slogan at the side of the highway.
His line in the SOTU address was “addicted to foreign oil”.
Also, note I said that Bush interefered *less*. Not zero.
I asked you if the DOE budget went down under Bush. Not if it went to zero.
I note that you haven’t answered me.
If your argument is merely that Bush spent and interfered less than Obama (but more than any of his predecessors), fine, but that’s no reason for me to miss him. There are over 300 million Americans who’ve spent less than Obama, but that should not be the only qualification for being President.
From Jim’s link and to George’s point:
“We have this momentum out there to set about doing what we said we wanted to do back in the 1970s: reduce the flow of imports from volatile regions,” [Historian from University of Houston] Pratt said. “It was like the Holy Grail back then. And suddenly it seems possible.”
later
The oil boom has plenty of economic upside potential. IHS-CERA predicts oil production could directly and indirectly generate another 1.3 million U.S. jobs over the next decade and raise an additional $97 billion in federal taxes and royalty payments.
But plenty of people are concerned about the other costs that might come with more oil production.
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a major project to bring Canadian oil sands to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, has become a rallying point for environmentalists, with hundreds arrested during a sit-in in front of the White House several weeks ago.
And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with new rules aimed at tighter controls on emissions from oil and gas drilling, production and transportation.
Actually, I’d say Jim’s link proves Gregg’s comment.
“If your argument is merely that Bush spent and interfered less than Obama (but more than any of his predecessors), fine,..”
It is.
” but that’s no reason for me to miss him.”
There’s lots about Bush II, I didn’t like. I wasn’t trying to make a case for him..I was giving an example of an alternative to Obama’s actions.
“If your argument is merely that Bush spent and interfered less than Obama (but more than any of his predecessors), fine,..”
It is.
Bush deserves credit not because he was better than his predecessors but because his successor was worse??? Does that actually make sense to you?
By that argument, we should long for Jimmy Carter because he spent less than Bush did.
“Obama bad” does not mean “Bush good” any more than “Bush bad” means “Carter good.”
“I asked you if the DOE budget went down under Bush. Not if it went to zero.
I note that you haven’t answered me. ”
Not every question is worth an answer. I dont’ care what the DOE budget was because I don’t know how the dollars were allocated.
What I do know is that the question is irrelevant to my point.
Not every question is worth an answer. I dont’ care what the DOE budget was because I don’t know how the dollars were allocated.
What I do know is that the question is irrelevant to my point.
Really? You don’t understand how the DOE is relevant to government interference in energy markets? You need to know every detail of the DOE budget to form an opinion? The name of the department doesn’t provide a clue?
Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
Ronald Reagan asked, “When has the Department of Energy every produced a single barrel of oil?”
I’ll bet you don’t answer that question, either.
Edward:
Yes Edward – irrelevant..wholly, totally and utterly irrelevant to my point…do you even remember what my point was?
Your question about the DOE is irrelevant to my point.
Period.
Do you even know what my point was? I begin to doubt it:
It’s like you’ve sat in a dark room festering and fulminating and twisting your mind into the raging conclusion that I’m trying to make a case for loving Bush (either one of them).
I’m not.
My point – since you clearly do not know or remember – was that the government doesn’t create jobs (aside from the few gubbmint jobs) but it can and does interfere with job creation. And lately it’s been interfering a LOT. I mentioned Bush only as an example of a president who interfered LESS than Obama.
That’s it.
How you go from that to thinking the number of bbl the DOE creates is at all relevant, [I agree with you – none – which of course is the entire point ] or a love fest with Bush I cannot tell.
Maybe the holiday seasons stresses are getting to you.
My point – since you clearly do not know or remember – was that the government doesn’t create jobs (aside from the few gubbmint jobs) but it can and does interfere with job creation. And lately it’s been interfering a LOT. I mentioned Bush only as an example of a president who interfered LESS than Obama.
The point that you miss, Gregg, is that Bush (like every other President) based his policies on what he inherited from his predecessors, *NOT* his successor.
The arrow of time flows in only one direction, no matter how hard you try to reverse it. Bush did not shrink the size of government from Obama levels, he *grew* the size of government from Clinton levels.
That is what those inane billboards are asking us to “miss” — Obama 0.5. The man who grew the size of the Federal government to unprecedented levels, at a faster rate than any President since Kennedy, and set the stage for everything Obama is doing now.
The fact that Obama destroyed more jobs than Bush did is no reason for any rational person to “miss” Bush. That’s like asking people to miss the broken arm they had last year because it’s better than the broken leg they have now.
The American people are no longer willing to put up with that. That’s what the Tea Party movement is all about. People are fed up with *both* political parties.
Read my lips — no new Bushes!
…Well ok maybe now WHOLLy irrelevant..since what you are saying about the DOE supports my point….